PDA

View Full Version : Spell Storing bolts/arrows! here we go again.



Wookie-ranger
2012-01-03, 10:30 AM
More of a mind game then a real play idea.
as a player-> YES, PLEASE! :smallbiggrin:
as a DM -> NO WAY! :smallfurious:

So, Spell storing cost is +1 enchantment (2000gp for 50 bolts), plus masterwork cost (+350 for 50 bolts), plus cost of 50 bolts (5gp)
=2355gp for 50 bolts of spell storing.

scenario 1: all goes
Players are allowed to make/buy those bolts. they work by hitting a target and the spell is released. If a DM allows this, he either has something BIG planned for the party, or the campaign is already so cheesy that it does not matter anyway.
effect: campaign ends, even a low level party can defeat even the strongest dragons, outsiders and devils/demons in a few rounds. a simple wind wall might block it, but players will find a way around it. that would even work in E6.

scenario 2: can do, sort of.
this one is at least plausible. Players can make/buy these bolts, but they don't work as range ammunition, you need to use them in melee. it does say in the PHB that you can use then as a melee weapon after all. A DM might allow this, but keep readying.
Effect: players might use them in melee, at -4 for an improvised weapon. This could work as -4 is a sizable penalty. the DM could also house rule that any attempt to hit has a 50% to destroy the bolt (and maybe even have the spell released on the player attempting the attack).
a smart player would use them as a cheap potion though. loaded up with 'cure serious wounds' they heal 3d8+1 per caster level (min5, max 15), but only do 1d4 damage. Its the cheapest cure potion (injection?) you will find.

scenario 3: nope, no can do.
safest way to go. player simply cannot get them.
effect: there are plenty of other ways to break the game left.


what do y'all think? are there any other ways to nerf spell storing bolts to the point of making them viable and at least as balanced as 'alter self' :smallwink:
such as by raising the cost to +3 (18000gp) and using scenario 2?

Darrin
2012-01-03, 10:59 AM
YMMV, but I don't see that it's all that unbalancing. The existing restrictions (spell levels 1-3, targeted spells only) should work just fine. They're disposable items, so it's not like they stick around after they've been used.

Archery already gets boned pretty hard as it is. If the players try to abuse it... well, turnabout is fair play, knuckleheads.

Flickerdart
2012-01-03, 11:05 AM
Spell storing bolts are perfectly fine. If you think they're imbalanced, you should be banning scrolls, potions, wands, dorjes, cognizance crystals...

Alefiend
2012-01-03, 11:22 AM
This would remove the only real incentive to take levels in Arcane Archer. I see no problem with that. :smallamused:

supermonkeyjoe
2012-01-03, 12:08 PM
Actually the cost is 8355:


In addition to an enhancement bonus, weapons may have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

Emphasis mine,

You need to make them +1 spell storing ammo which is marginally more balanced

Wookie-ranger
2012-01-03, 01:22 PM
A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

very good point! completely forgot about it! thanks

Strormer
2012-01-03, 01:32 PM
Personally, I don't see this as broken at all. Let 'em fly. The only thing I would mention is that there is no way to recover a used spell storing ammunition as it is destroyed by use. The only way this gets really gross is if you play an elven machine gun and coat the universe with shafts, but then the cost becomes prohibitive so yeah...

Siosilvar
2012-01-03, 01:37 PM
8305gp is only cheaper than a wand for a 3rd level spell and up. Given that spell storing can only hold up to a 3rd level spell, it seems reasonable to me, since you have to make a normal attack roll and use targeted spells.

Benefits over using a wand: Range and price point.
Drawbacks: Attack roll, limited spell selection, level cap.

Wookie-ranger
2012-01-03, 01:39 PM
hmmm, interesting. less people have a problem with them then i thought. nice, need to link my DM this thread!

what would be the best spells to put into these arrows/bolts?

btw: Launch bolt anyone :smallsmile:

Darrin
2012-01-03, 01:57 PM
The only thing I would mention is that there is no way to recover a used spell storing ammunition as it is destroyed by use.

Well, I wouldn't say "no way". There's raptor arrows, aurorum, astral projection, and a Truenamer utterance, but those all may involve varying degrees of a DMG being thrown at your head.

Strormer
2012-01-03, 02:31 PM
Well, I wouldn't say "no way". There's raptor arrows, aurorum, astral projection, and a Truenamer utterance, but those all may involve varying degrees of a DMG being thrown at your head.

You're correct, but that's why I would table rule it anyway.

Gullintanni
2012-01-03, 02:37 PM
Well, I wouldn't say "no way". There's raptor arrows, aurorum, astral projection, and a Truenamer utterance, but those all may involve varying degrees of a DMG being thrown at your head.

Spell Storing Raptor Arrows :smalleek: :smallsigh:

I guess there are lots of cheesier things you can do but this makes my inner DM cry.

Incriptus
2012-01-03, 02:47 PM
Yes it is really 8305 gold, which is somewhere between level 2 & 3 wands. Spell Storing is good for up to level 3 spells, which right there makes it a little bit cheap . . . but what really pushes it over is that Wands are minimal caster level, with minimal attributes. As far as I can see Spell Storing has no such limitation. As a matter of fact when you cast a spell out of a spell storing level I have no idea who's stats you use, but it's almost assuredly better than the bare minimums given to wands.


The Raptor Arrows aren't nearly as scary since you won't have 50 of them. It is still pretty cool but only that its a ranged weapon instead of a melee [or throwing].

hydraa
2012-01-03, 05:25 PM
For another 10000 (200 per arrow) could you apply the the returning property and make them 'unbreakable' and 'permament' ?

sreservoir
2012-01-03, 05:37 PM
Yes it is really 8305 gold, which is somewhere between level 2 & 3 wands. Spell Storing is good for up to level 3 spells, which right there makes it a little bit cheap . . . but what really pushes it over is that Wands are minimal caster level, with minimal attributes. As far as I can see Spell Storing has no such limitation. As a matter of fact when you cast a spell out of a spell storing level I have no idea who's stats you use, but it's almost assuredly better than the bare minimums given to wands.


The Raptor Arrows aren't nearly as scary since you won't have 50 of them. It is still pretty cool but only that its a ranged weapon instead of a melee [or throwing].

on the other hand, it requires charging with slots during downtime, and only apply to targetted spells. they're really better for short-duration buffs!

besides, wands of 3/4 spells' costs are kind of annoyingly high.

CTrees
2012-01-03, 05:54 PM
For another 10000 (200 per arrow) could you apply the the returning property and make them 'unbreakable' and 'permament' ?

While the text of Returning states "This special ability can only be placed on a weapon that can be thrown," which would apply to basically anything (since technically, you CAN throw your glaive-guisarme), that's a little silly. Rule it as "this special ability can only be placed on a thrown weapon" and you avoid this issue as a DM, since "thrown weapon" is a special category.

Now then, given the cost, the limitations on spell level, and the fact that normal ammunition is destroyed on use, I don't see a huge problem with Spell Storing arrows/bolts. I might rule against adding metamagic, but even then... it's a single targeted spell, each, at a fair price, and I don't see any language that prevents saving throws. Worst case is what, an archer tossing out a bunch of Orbs, cast by a high level wizard? Or a bunch of different debuffs? I don't see how this is worse than an Ubercharger or Batman. Perhaps using tiny arrows to hold a lot of buffs and heals could be rough, but look at a DMM-persist cleric. I just don't see enough to be worried about.

Curmudgeon
2012-01-03, 11:55 PM
Not only are these disallowed by the rules, they lead to huge abuses.

Want to take out a Dragon with virtually no risk? Hit it with an arrow that'll deliver Shivering Touch from 1000' away.

Spell Storing on arrows is a game breaker.

Alienist
2012-01-04, 01:36 AM
This being the playground, I suppose a mention of Summon Nature's Ally so that you can have arrows which summon bears...

Alienist
2012-01-04, 01:39 AM
Not only are these disallowed by the rules, they lead to huge abuses.

Want to take out a Dragon with virtually no risk? Hit it with an arrow that'll deliver Shivering Touch from 1000' away.

Spell Storing on arrows is a game breaker.

There are already ways to make Shivering Touch a ranged attack, most of them much better than the arrow idea. With respect I suggest that if you're banning spell storing you're banning the wrong half of that particular combo.

ShneekeyTheLost
2012-01-04, 01:44 AM
There are already ways to make Shivering Touch a ranged attack, most of them much better than the arrow idea. With respect I suggest that if you're banning spell storing you're banning the wrong half of that particular combo.

Casting Shivering Touch is a standard action. Making a full attack with a bow, plus haste, plus rapid shot, is far more 3d6 dex damage... you're basically ending an encounter in one round.

Basically, it turns a standard action into an attack action. This bends the action economy over and casts Maximized Evard's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion on it

Alienist
2012-01-04, 02:42 AM
Casting Shivering Touch is a standard action. Making a full attack with a bow, plus haste, plus rapid shot, is far more 3d6 dex damage... you're basically ending an encounter in one round.

Basically, it turns a standard action into an attack action. This bends the action economy over and casts Maximized Evard's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion on it

That Shivering Touch can one shot Dragons is not Spell Storing's fault. Ban Shivering Touch instead of Storing Spell.

ShneekeyTheLost
2012-01-04, 02:55 AM
That Shivering Touch can one shot Dragons is not Spell Storing's fault. Ban Shivering Touch instead of Storing Spell.

Making any spell an attack action instead of a standard action is still bending the action economy over and using Evard's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion on it...


For example, the CL of the spell stored is whatever the CL of the caster was when it was put in it. So, store something like Scorching Ray for 3x4d6 per attack. Who needs flaming for +1d6 damage when you can get +12d6?

As another option, Poison spell. Now take 1d10 CON damage...

Or, if you want to debuff the target, load up a Dispel Magic into it...

The problem here is that one spell per round becomes a half a dozen or so fairly rapidly.

Alienist
2012-01-04, 04:56 AM
Right, so if melee gets something nice then the appropriate reaction is to ban it. Hmmm...

I'm sorry to say I find the "more than 1 spell per turn is broken" explanation also unconvincing. Maybe I've just seen too many playgrounders belting out their quickenings, giving wands to their familiars, cohorts etc.

I mean yes, when we say "oh noes! Won't someone think of the action economy?" I agree in principle... but that someone who should have thought about it was Wizards of the Coast, and that boat sailed a long long time ago.

Hirax
2012-01-04, 05:17 AM
Right, so if melee gets something nice then the appropriate reaction is to ban it. Hmmm...


You have that completely wrong. Casters are going to be able to use this way more effectively than non-casters.

TuggyNE
2012-01-04, 05:41 AM
Right, so if melee gets something nice then the appropriate reaction is to ban it.

<nitpick>We're actually talking about archers; melee refers to fighting at close range within the reach of (usually physical) weapons.</nitpick>

That said... honestly, this seems like it has a lot of potential for abuse, so probably needs refining before it should be allowed.

LordBlades
2012-01-04, 06:38 AM
<nitpick>We're actually talking about archers; melee refers to fighting at close range within the reach of (usually physical) weapons.</nitpick>

That said... honestly, this seems like it has a lot of potential for abuse, so probably needs refining before it should be allowed.

TBH, if a player is set to break the game, there's a ton of other ways to do it. And if he isn't, you can ask him nicely to tone it down a bit when you think it's too much.

Killer Angel
2012-01-04, 06:51 AM
Making any spell an attack action instead of a standard action is still bending the action economy over and using Evard's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion on it...

For example, the CL of the spell stored is whatever the CL of the caster was when it was put in it. So, store something like Scorching Ray for 3x4d6 per attack. Who needs flaming for +1d6 damage when you can get +12d6?


Now, think of those spells metamagicked by Rod and things will go even worse...



As another option, Poison spell. Now take 1d10 CON damage...


But you specifically need a druid for that



The problem here is that one spell per round becomes a half a dozen or so fairly rapidly.

With that RoF, you'll run short of arrows after 5 or 6 fights...

That said, I agree it can easily become game breaking, but if we're thinking to a high powered game, with a group of 2-3 primary casters with their own metamagic reducers, well, at that point, an archer with those kind of arrows can effectively contribute.

Worira
2012-01-04, 07:04 AM
Then you make more, because they aren't particularly expensive. The only ways I'd allow this is by making firing one a standard action, or only allowing one to trigger per round.

Darrin
2012-01-04, 07:31 AM
This being the playground, I suppose a mention of Summon Nature's Ally so that you can have arrows which summon bears...

Not a targeted spell, so won't work.


Casting Shivering Touch is a standard action. Making a full attack with a bow, plus haste, plus rapid shot, is far more 3d6 dex damage... you're basically ending an encounter in one round.


Assuming the arrows hit. Also assuming no wind wall, wings of cover, lesser globe of invulnerability, mirror image, etc.



Basically, it turns a standard action into an attack action. This bends the action economy over and casts Maximized Evard's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion on it

They're still one-shot items. So the PCs win one encounter in a round. They're still burning resources against someone with unlimited resources.


For example, the CL of the spell stored is whatever the CL of the caster was when it was put in it. So, store something like Scorching Ray for 3x4d6 per attack. Who needs flaming for +1d6 damage when you can get +12d6?


This one I'm not entirely sure how to parse... although the spell doesn't have a "Target:" entry, it does mention targets in the text, and I have a hard time imagining how a ray would *not* be a targeted spell. However, it's never been entirely clear to me if you have to make a separate ranged touch attack for the ray to hit the target.



As another option, Poison spell. Now take 1d10 CON damage...


Fort save negates. And there's a large number of creature types that are immune to begin with.



Or, if you want to debuff the target, load up a Dispel Magic into it...


Naked monster laughs at your dispel. Or wind wall, wings of cover, lesser globe of invulnerability, mirror image, etc., still works.



The problem here is that one spell per round becomes a half a dozen or so fairly rapidly.

So the archer is Gawd of Pwnage for 1 round, maybe 2. If the DM is being even moderately reasonable with WBL, he's going to run out of spell-storing arrows sooner or later.


You have that completely wrong. Casters are going to be able to use this way more effectively than non-casters.

What with their high BAB and all those ranged combat feats they had room to take? I can buy that on a cleric archer build, but a gish archer is going to have trouble pulling this off on a regular basis. At worst, you'd have a Tier 1 making a Tier-4/5 Archer look badass for a few rounds. So you've got one PC working together with another PC to compensate for their weak areas... Smells Like Teamwork. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I'll take a group of PCs working together to mindrape my encounters rather than one PC doing it by himself any day.

Hirax
2012-01-04, 07:32 AM
Heroics is a level 2 spell with a 10 minutes/level duration. What relevant archery feats aren't fighter bonus feats?

CTrees
2012-01-04, 09:14 AM
As a thought experiment, how much more reasonable would these be if, instead of being a +1 enchantment to be able to store spells up to third level, there were a range of spell storing options? I'm thinking, +1 to store spells up to first level, +2 for spells up to second level, +3 for third level or lower? Possibly then even continue the pattern on upwards, as the enchantment then starts to get fantastically expensive, and honestly... +1 arrows of spell storing (9th level spells) as a +10 equivalent weapon sound rather in line with other epic absurdity.

Also shivering touch is a good candidate for banning all on it's own, spell storing arrows or no.

Qwertystop
2012-01-04, 10:13 AM
What would happen if you put Launch Bolt in an arrow?

Darrin
2012-01-04, 10:36 AM
What would happen if you put Launch Bolt in an arrow?

Not much. Although this is a targeted spell and you assume an arrow/crossbow bolt are interchangeable, the Target entry reads:

"Target: One crossbow bolt in your possession"

When the arrow strikes your opponent and you use a free action to activate the spell, it fizzles because:

A) The creature the arrow struck is not a crossbow bolt
B) Even assuming you can argue that the targeted spell affects the projectile instead of the target, the projectile is no longer in your possession.

Qwertystop
2012-01-04, 10:39 AM
Ah. I was thinking that the target of the spell was the guy you're shooting at, so when the arrow hits a nearby bolt flies at what it hit.

Darrin
2012-01-04, 11:12 AM
Ah. I was thinking that the target of the spell was the guy you're shooting at, so when the arrow hits a nearby bolt flies at what it hit.

It's kind of a mess, because while the Target: line entry mentions the crossbow bolt, the spell description also mentions your opponent as the target.

The term "target" isn't clearly defined from a rules standpoint. Rays also get confusing, since they are a "targeted" spell but they generally don't have a "Target:" line.

In any case, the designers didn't really anticipate that a game term could somewhat-simultaneously refer to a direct object, an indirect object, a material component, and a spell effect all at the same time.

CTrees
2012-01-04, 11:20 AM
In any case, the designers didn't really anticipate that a game term could somewhat-simultaneously refer to a direct object, an indirect object, a material component, and a spell effect all at the same time.


*cough* (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html)

letters

Wookie-ranger
2012-01-04, 11:36 AM
so about balancing (pretents there is such a think in dnd)

we could nerf it to only allow bolts (not arrows), to keep the action economy from falling apart?
problems that remain:
double wielding repeating crossbows of speed. :smallamused:
my DN with more skelis then you can count

KicktheCAN
2012-01-04, 12:21 PM
In an actual game this hardly seems unbalanced. One must remember that the arrows have to have a spell actually cast into them. Sure a Scorching Ray arrow is better than a Flaming arrow but you have to actually cast Scorching Ray into that arrow. Shivering Touch arrows are just as broken as Shivering Touch but that is a different issue.

Are you going to petition your wizard to spend all of their spells loading up your arrows in the morning? Are you a wizard? If so then why are you shooting arrows?

Killer Angel
2012-01-04, 12:26 PM
Are you going to petition your wizard to spend all of their spells loading up your arrows in the morning? Are you a wizard? If so then why are you shooting arrows?

It won't happen in adventure. The arrows are created out of adventure time (you don't craft / buy 'em in the morning), and so are charged by mr. caster out of adventure time.
Once you start adventuring, the arrows are already loaded.

Gullintanni
2012-01-04, 01:43 PM
Not only are these disallowed by the rules, they lead to huge abuses.

Want to take out a Dragon with virtually no risk? Hit it with an arrow that'll deliver Shivering Touch from 1000' away.

Spell Storing on arrows is a game breaker.

I agree with you here regarding game breaking. Spell Storing arrows are a bad idea; but would you kindly point out where these are forbidden by the rules? I can't find any limitation on Spell Storing ammunition. :smallconfused:

Incriptus
2012-01-04, 02:15 PM
A few additional thoughts:

Ammunition is listed under the catagory of Ranged Weapons. The DMG does not state what weapons can accept the spell storing enchantment. The MIC how ever in it's list of magic items by price, does list spell storing as acceptable for Melee but does spell storing is not on the list for ranged weapons. I think that is enough evidence for a judge to rule spell storing arrows as illegal.

Spell Storing itself isn't the real problem. It's that they didn't prepare for limited charges on ammunition. Another example would be arrows of greater dispel. The three times per day is suddenly 50 times in a life time. Does a quiver of 50 Lucky Arrows give you 50 re-rolled attack rolls? 50 Manifester crossbow bolts 5 PP, fifty times per day. And those last two you don't even need to fire your arrows at any one! . . . I think there are only two reasonable solutions. 1) Ban anything with charges from being arrows. 2) is to treat the 50 peices of ammunition as a single entity for those abilties.

For example, Spell Storing Arrows [assuming they're even legal]. If you cast a spell into any of them, it goes into all of them, if any of them discharge the spell, all of them have the spell discharged from them. If you have Greater Dispelling Arrows all 50 have the power, but if more than 3 are fired in a day the power is lost from the rest.

Jeraa
2012-01-04, 02:30 PM
I agree with you here regarding game breaking. Spell Storing arrows are a bad idea; but would you kindly point out where these are forbidden by the rules? I can't find any limitation on Spell Storing ammunition. :smallconfused:

Well, Spell Storing is only an option on the Melee Weapon Special Abilities chart. Its not on the Ranged Weapon Special Ability Chart. Yes, arrows and bolt can be used as a melee weapon, but they aren't melee weapons. They are ammunition (or, if you go by where they are listed on the weapons chart in the PHB, they are ranged weapons.)

I would never allow spell storing arrows or bolts.

Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires.
You are not wielding an arrow or bolt if it is fired from a bow/crossbow. Even if spell storing was put on the bow/crossbow, it wouldn't work. The weapon has to strike the target - unless you smack the creature with your bow, the weapon is not striking the creature, the ammunition is. Once it leaves your hands, you are no longer wielding the weapon.

Wookie-ranger
2012-01-04, 02:52 PM
Yes, arrows and bolt can be used as a melee weapon, but they aren't melee weapons. They are ammunition (or, if you go by where they are listed on the weapons chart in the PHB, they are ranged weapons.)

agreed, bolts are not designed to be melee weapon. but the PHB explicitly states that they can be used as such (at -4). a longsword is a melee weapon, but if i put a couple of them in a catapult they suddenly become ammunition! look at that! (would i also get -4?):smallbiggrin:



You are not wielding an arrow or bolt if it is fired from a bow/crossbow. Even if spell storing was put on the bow/crossbow, it wouldn't work. The weapon has to strike the target - unless you smack the creature with your bow, the weapon is not striking the creature, the ammunition is.

so if you have to wield the bolts to use the stored spell; then so by it. they are still uber-powerful, think of self buffs, heaing, etc at the meager cost of 1d4 hp.

ps: i woud not allow as a dm, none the less.

Rubik
2012-01-04, 07:19 PM
A few additional thoughts:

Ammunition is listed under the catagory of Ranged Weapons. The DMG does not state what weapons can accept the spell storing enchantment. The MIC how ever in it's list of magic items by price, does list spell storing as acceptable for Melee but does spell storing is not on the list for ranged weapons. I think that is enough evidence for a judge to rule spell storing arrows as illegal.The thing with spell storing is that it's never in any way barred from being applied to ranged weapons; it's just not added on to random ranged weapons when rolling for treasure.


Spell Storing itself isn't the real problem. It's that they didn't prepare for limited charges on ammunition. Another example would be arrows of greater dispel. The three times per day is suddenly 50 times in a life time. Does a quiver of 50 Lucky Arrows give you 50 re-rolled attack rolls? 50 Manifester crossbow bolts 5 PP, fifty times per day. And those last two you don't even need to fire your arrows at any one! . . . I think there are only two reasonable solutions. 1) Ban anything with charges from being arrows. 2) is to treat the 50 peices of ammunition as a single entity for those abilties. Manifester levels aren't a problem, IMO. It's that cognizance crystals are insanely overpriced. 1000 gp for 1 pp? No.


For example, Spell Storing Arrows [assuming they're even legal]. If you cast a spell into any of them, it goes into all of them, if any of them discharge the spell, all of them have the spell discharged from them. If you have Greater Dispelling Arrows all 50 have the power, but if more than 3 are fired in a day the power is lost from the rest.Does that mean when one +1 arrow breaks when it's used that all the rest of them lose the +1 property as well?


Well, Spell Storing is only an option on the Melee Weapon Special Abilities chart. Its not on the Ranged Weapon Special Ability Chart. Yes, arrows and bolt can be used as a melee weapon, but they aren't melee weapons. They are ammunition (or, if you go by where they are listed on the weapons chart in the PHB, they are ranged weapons.)Again, it's not barred from being on a ranged weapon; you just don't get them randomly.

I had an artificer//shaper at one point that used +1 spell storing power storing aurorum dye arrows (dye arrows are from Pathfinder, and are used as a touch attack). I stored my infusions and powers in them at the end of each day so I could use them to buff my allies and debuff my foes. It worked rather well, especially since I could collect the pieces and rebuild them later.

Curmudgeon
2012-01-04, 08:00 PM
I agree with you here regarding game breaking. Spell Storing arrows are a bad idea; but would you kindly point out where these are forbidden by the rules? I can't find any limitation on Spell Storing ammunition. :smallconfused:
There are two rules problems which make spell storing not work on ammunition.
Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires.
Once you shoot ammunition, you have no control over it because you are no longer wielding it. Spell storing is an option only granted to a weapon's (active, current) wielder. It's not granted to its past wielder.

Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while normal ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.
Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost. Since ammunition that hits is destroyed on impact, and that destruction removes all magic from the ammunition, there's no longer any spell storing property.

sreservoir
2012-01-04, 08:06 PM
so ... there's no limitation on spell storing ammunition. you just can't discharge the spell meaningfully?

Curmudgeon
2012-01-04, 08:10 PM
so ... there's no limitation on spell storing ammunition. you just can't discharge the spell meaningfully?
There's no rules limit to the application, no. It's an application that's purely a waste of money, is all.

Darrin
2012-01-04, 08:42 PM
Well, Spell Storing is only an option on the Melee Weapon Special Abilities chart.


Text trumps table. This is not a compelling argument.



You are not wielding an arrow or bolt if it is fired from a bow/crossbow. Even if spell storing was put on the bow/crossbow, it wouldn't work. The weapon has to strike the target - unless you smack the creature with your bow, the weapon is not striking the creature, the ammunition is. Once it leaves your hands, you are no longer wielding the weapon.

This is much harder to argue against, although the game rules don't explicitly define "wielding". When someone gets hit by an arrow, they are taking damage from someone "wielding" a bow, and nowhere in the rules do they specify that "wielding" is exclusive to melee weapons. In general, whatever enhancements are on the bow are conferred to the ammunition and vice versa. When an archer with a flaming bow +1 fires an arrow and strikes a target, the target takes fire damage from the bow's enhancement even though the arrow may be completely normal and is no longer under the direct control of the archer as soon as it leaves his fingers.

But that's not a very strong argument... the flaming property has a provision to address ammunition, while the spell storing property quite obviously doesn't.

Curmudgeon
2012-01-04, 09:05 PM
Even if spell storing was put on the bow/crossbow, it wouldn't work. The weapon has to strike the target - unless you smack the creature with your bow, the weapon is not striking the creature, the ammunition is.
There's also the problem that a magic weapon property doesn't transfer from bow to arrow unless it says so. Flaming says so, but spell storing doesn't. You're right: you would need to whack them with the spell storing bow, not the arrow.

Wookie-ranger
2012-01-04, 09:59 PM
you can also have a 'dancing spell storing long sword'.
you let the sword attack on its own, then it hits an opponent and release the stored spell.
in the dancing description it says

... the person who activated it is not considered armed with the weapon. in all other respects, it is considered wielded and attended by the creature...
not sure if that is an argument for or against spell storing bolts, but it is definably an argument that not all weapons need to be held in your hand to be considered wielded.

also arguing that it is so much more powerful then the other +1 enchantments is not really reasonable. since for the same price you can enchant your bow with 1d6 damage on EVERY arrow you will ever shoot! That would sum up to many hundreds if not thousands or arrows/bolts over the course of a dozen or so adventures (or about 6 months to 2 years in game) if you give those to your cohorts or skeletal archers. in the sort run you would have a few potentially very powerful bolts, but in the long run you will run out really fast and have to make/buy more arrows/bolts, and that will get very expensive very soon.



You are not wielding an arrow or bolt if it is fired from a bow/crossbow. Even if spell storing was put on the bow/crossbow, it wouldn't work. The weapon has to strike the target - unless you smack the creature with your bow, the weapon is not striking the creature, the ammunition is. Once it leaves your hands, you are no longer wielding the weapon.
well, actually you are!
example would be the 'screaming bolt' (DMG p227)

one of these +2 bolts screams when fired, it forces all enemies of the wielder within 20 feet of the path of the bolt to make to succeed on a DC14 wil save or become shaken.
emphasis mine
the person that fires the bolt is said to be the wielder of said bolt, even if he may have never even touched it. it sounds a bid odd to me, too, but that's RAW. (its about as odd that it says only enemies, so other players, allies or innocent bystanders would not be affected at all:smallconfused:)



Since ammunition that hits is destroyed on impact, and that destruction removes all magic from the ammunition, there's no longer any spell storing property.
lets look at the 'sleep arrow' at 132gp its quiet cheap. this is basically nothing more then a spell storing arrow with sleep cast into it.
50 of those would cost you 6600gp (an oddly round number:smallconfused:). which is a cheaper then 50 spell storeing arrows would be (8305gp)
this shows that an arrow that strikes its target has enough time for the magic to take effect before it is considered destroyed.


and last but not least:
technically a whip is considered a exotic range weapon. (PHB p99, table 7-4). :smallbiggrin:
"seeking whip of distance" anyone?

Curmudgeon
2012-01-04, 11:13 PM
in the dancing description it says

not sure if that is an argument for or against spell storing bolts, but it is definably an argument that not all weapons need to be held in your hand to be considered wielded.
Absolutely. If a weapon enhancement specifically says it's still considered wielded, that's a known exception. Otherwise you need to physically wield the weapon.

lets look at the 'sleep arrow' at 132gp its quiet cheap. this is basically nothing more then a spell storing arrow with sleep cast into it.
...
this shows that an arrow that strikes its target has enough time for the magic to take effect before it is considered destroyed.
You're making an equation when there's only a similarity. A Sleep Arrow has specific properties, but there's no mechanism in the rules by which you can apply behavioral characteristics from a specific weapon to a different, non-specific weapon. It's perhaps useful to review the header for that section of the magic item rules:
Specific Weapons

The following specific weapons usually are preconstructed with exactly the qualities described here.

Wookie-ranger
2012-01-04, 11:31 PM
...apply behavioral characteristics from a specific weapon to a different, non-specific weapon. It's perhaps useful to review the header for that section of the magic item rules:

all true but note the 'screaming bolt'.
the description specifies that the person that shot the bolt is the wielder. But the way it was written does not appear to be specific to the screaming bolt, but to all bolts, since there is no difference in firing a normal bolt or a screaming bolt.
unless we are arguing that the screaming bolt can fire itself, because it does not say anywhere in the description that you need to shot it from a crossbow. :smallcool:

LordBlades
2012-01-05, 02:06 AM
It won't happen in adventure. The arrows are created out of adventure time (you don't craft / buy 'em in the morning), and so are charged by mr. caster out of adventure time.
Once you start adventuring, the arrows are already loaded.

It also works wonders on Zen Archery clerics who can charge a ****ton of them during downtimes.

Incriptus
2012-01-05, 02:43 AM
The thing with spell storing is that it's never in any way barred from being applied to ranged weapons; it's just not added on to random ranged weapons when rolling for treasure.


I'm not talking about the randomly rolled table, I'm referencing P239-243 that lists the magic attributes [sorted by price] that can be placed on Melee & Ranged Weapons.

Now I know the "Text Trumps Table" rule, however I would purpose, that the table is not contradictory to the text but rather a clarification or an appendium to the text.



Manifester levels aren't a problem, IMO. It's that cognizance crystals are insanely overpriced. 1000 gp for 1 pp? No.


Actually it's the same as the 1000 gp for 1 level one spell. Actually not a bad deal since it's treated as if it comes from you.



Does that mean when one +1 arrow breaks when it's used that all the rest of them lose the +1 property as well?


First off that was a non-RAW suggestiong . . . but regardless +1 isn't a "charged" ability, apples & oranges.

Flickerdart
2012-01-05, 03:14 AM
Actually it's the same as the 1000 gp for 1 level one spell. Actually not a bad deal since it's treated as if it comes from you.
A level 1 spell with CL17 costs 1000gp. A level 1 power with effects appropriate for ML17 costs 81 times as much.

Gullintanni
2012-01-05, 07:52 AM
Hmmm...well, I find the argument about whether or not you're wielding the ammunition fired to be somewhat pedantic. 3.5 D&D doesn't define what happens when you loose the arrow and whether or not it ceases to be treated as wielded, so really, we have no RAW, and anything we discussed would be RAI, IMHO.

Regarding the point about ammunition being destroyed...the destruction of ammunition resolves after damage is dealt. If it was destroyed prior to damage being dealt, then it wouldn't deal damage. And from the text of Spell Storing:

"Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires."

Bolded for emphasis. Once the creature takes damage, the wielder of the weapon can discharge the spell immediately (before the arrow is destroyed). If you agree that the arrow is wielded until its damage resolves, then the ability functions as intended. If not, then it doesn't. But again, there's no RAW here.

The more convincing argument here for me is that Spell Storing is a Melee Weapon Property. Text does trump table, but nowhere in the text for Spell Storing does it contradict the table to suggest that Spell Storing may be used on anything but a melee weapon, so in the absence of contradiction, the table stands.

I suppose the most troublesome rules issue then is what happens when you try to use an arrow in melee, but...I'm comfortable with the notion that in that instance you're using a ranged weapon in melee, and that it remains a ranged weapon regardless of how you use it, so you can't enchant it with melee weapon properties. The rules function better that way.

tl;dr - Spell Storing is for Melee Weapons. Kthx.

Wookie-ranger
2012-01-05, 08:14 AM
The more convincing argument here for me is that Spell Storing is a Melee Weapon Property. Text does trump table, but nowhere in the text for Spell Storing does it contradict the table to suggest that Spell Storing may be used on anything but a melee weapon, so in the absence of contradiction, the table stands.


here is the text for spell storing weapon enchantment:

Spell Storing: A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance to have a spell stored in it already.

Strong evocation (plus aura of stored spell); CL 12th; Craft Magical Arms and Armor, creator must be a caster of at least 12th level; Price +1 bonus.

it does not use the word melee or range, it simply specifies "the weapon". there for open ended.


also. a whip is classified as a exotic-range weapon. and there are are examples of spell storing whips (ie, sweet sting)
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Sweet_Sting_%283.5e_Equipment%29



To use it in melee is quiet easy, if not very smart at -4.

A crossbow bolt used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (crit 2).

panaikhan
2012-01-05, 08:43 AM
Personally, I would not allow (or attempt to make) spell-storing arrows, sinse as ammunition they are destroyed on impact.
I would, however, allow a spell-storing bow (sinse I'm sure it says somewhere that a bow confers any enchantments onto it's arrows).
I'd even consider allowing (at great expense and research time) a bow that had a wand storing compartment, and would cast the wand spell on the first arrow drawn each round.

Darrin
2012-01-05, 08:55 AM
also. a whip is classified as a exotic-range weapon. and there are are examples of spell storing whips (ie, sweet sting)

Minor quibble: The whip was a ranged weapon in 3.0. In 3.5, it's a one-handed exotic melee weapon, both on the weapon table and in its description:

"The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach"

So a spell-storing whip is perfectly legal without getting into the "ranged vs. melee" argument. However, unless it's a whip dagger (which was never updated to 3.5 rules), it won't do any damage to a creature with a +1 armor bonus or +3 natural armor bonus, and you can't trigger the stored spell unless the weapon does damage.

Wookie-ranger
2012-01-05, 09:10 AM
Minor quibble: The whip was a ranged weapon in 3.0. In 3.5, it's a one-handed exotic melee weapon, both on the weapon table and in its description:
"The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach"
hmm, thanks. my PHB is still 3.0 never got around updating it. Most other people on my table have the 3.5.


for the record: as a DM i would probably not allow Spell storing arrows. the only way would be to nerf it quit a bit.
1. cannot be shot. bolts/arrows of spell storing must be used in melee (at -4)
2. the arrow/bolt is destroyed after any attempted attack, weather it hit the target or not.
3. they have to do damage (1d4) to release the spell. if you somehow dont take damage (such as DR) you cannot gain any beneficial effects from the spell.

these points would limit its usefulness a lot, but still have the self-buff/heal abuse option. but then again there are also potions. the bolts/arrows would only be a bit cheaper and do still do 1d4 damage. sounds like a fair tradeoff.

Gullintanni
2012-01-05, 10:01 AM
here is the text for spell storing weapon enchantment:

it does not use the word melee or range, it simply specifies "the weapon". there for open ended.


You're correct in that there's no specification here. All that means is that the Spell Storing text is silent on the issue of what types of weapons may inherit the property. In a case of Text vs. Table, you have to have text in order to trump the table, otherwise the table still has primacy.

If Text = Null and Table = 1 then the result is 1, because the Text isn't offering anything. If you take a look at pages 239-240 of the Magic Item Compendium, Spell Storing is listed as a Melee Weapon property.

Hop back to the SRD. Arrows are listed under Ranged Weapons, so are Bolts, ergo they are not eligible for use with Melee only weapon properties. While I do agree that Bolts and Arrows can be used in Melee as Melee Weapons, at the time of enchanting, I'm of a mind to think that they defer to their default weapon classification, again, in this case, Ranged Weapons.

That's how I'd run it anyway. YMMV.

CTrees
2012-01-05, 10:52 AM
One could argue the following:

The general text on what enchantments can be applied to what weapons is this (from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm)):

Magic Weapon Special Ability Descriptions
In addition to enhancement bonuses, weapons can have one or more of the special abilities detailed below. A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.
Several specific enchantments, in text, list restrictions on that general rule. For example, Keen ("Only piercing or slashing weapons can be keen.") and Returning ("This special ability can only be placed on a weapon that can be thrown."). These are examples, in text, of specific trumps general - the general rule, at the head of the section, is that any of the enchanments can be applied to any of the weapons. Specific restrictions are listed for some of the enchantments on weapon types to which they can apply - if none are listed, one must, RAW, default to the general rule. Spell Storing lacks a text restriction, so it defaults to the general rule, which would mean it should be able to be applied to any weapon - bolts or arrows included.

While one could argue that tables can be given priority when there is no relavent text, that is not the case here. Text trumps tables, so the shorter lists in the tables is irrelavent.

Gullintanni
2012-01-05, 01:15 PM
One could argue the following:

The general text on what enchantments can be applied to what weapons is this (from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm)):

Several specific enchantments, in text, list restrictions on that general rule. For example, Keen ("Only piercing or slashing weapons can be keen.") and Returning ("This special ability can only be placed on a weapon that can be thrown."). These are examples, in text, of specific trumps general - the general rule, at the head of the section, is that any of the enchanments can be applied to any of the weapons. Specific restrictions are listed for some of the enchantments on weapon types to which they can apply - if none are listed, one must, RAW, default to the general rule. Spell Storing lacks a text restriction, so it defaults to the general rule, which would mean it should be able to be applied to any weapon - bolts or arrows included.

While one could argue that tables can be given priority when there is no relavent text, that is not the case here. Text trumps tables, so the shorter lists in the tables is irrelavent.

Hmm...I'm not sure I agree with your reading of the text in the SRD, to suggest that it establishes a firm rule suggesting that ALL weapons have access to ALL properties listed below.

For me, the tables in the MIC establish restrictions based on Melee and Ranged categories; and that that restriction is permitted based on the SRD text. Specific > General and the MIC specifies for each weapon property which ones are for ranged and which ones are for melee.

It seems that the case here is of a table based specification vs. a text based generalization. Depending on how you resolve that, you've got a situation where the specific restrictions on items with the Keen and Returning property hold because they're printed in text; whereas the ranged/melee restrictions established in the MIC don't hold because they're in a table. That seems like kind of an arbitrary distinction, especially given that the SRD establishes a generalization, whereas the MIC establishes sweeping specifics on a wide breadth of items, and specific is supposed to trump general.

Regardless, I believe you're correct in that there's an argument there to be made.

Wookie-ranger
2012-01-05, 01:29 PM
Setting aside the point of legality.
assuming it is legal to make/buy them and work when fired from a bow/crossbow.
it would still not raise a rogue or fighter to the tier 1 level of a wizard.

Gullintanni
2012-01-05, 01:59 PM
Setting aside the point of legality.
assuming it is legal to make/buy them and work when fired from a bow/crossbow.
it would still not raise a rogue or fighter to the tier 1 level of a wizard.

True. The big imbalance it causes though is that it would make a Tier 1 Zen Archery Cleric even more powerful. Especially with re-chargeable Raptor arrows :smalleek:

Fighters Linear, Wizard Quadratic. If you give something to a Fighter to make them more powerful, you've gotta make sure that a Wizard can't make better use of that something, because if they can, they'll do exponentially better with it than your Fighter will.

Curmudgeon
2012-01-05, 03:48 PM
I would, however, allow a spell-storing bow (sinse I'm sure it says somewhere that a bow confers any enchantments onto it's arrows).
No, it doesn't say that anywhere. That's why every single enhancement which does transfer the magic from projectile weapon to ammunition needs to say so explicitly.
Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the chaotic power upon their ammunition.
Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the lawful power upon their ammunition.
Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the bane quality upon their ammunition.
Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition.
Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition.
Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the cold energy upon their ammunition.
Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the holy power upon their ammunition.
Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the cold energy upon their ammunition.
Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the merciful effect upon their ammunition.
Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the electricity energy upon their ammunition.
Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the electricity energy upon their ammunition.
Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the sonic energy upon their ammunition.
Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the unholy power upon their ammunition. Spell Storing doesn't have such a declaration of magic transfer from weapon to ammunition.

Story Time
2012-01-05, 05:29 PM
...now that the entire thread has been hit in the proverbial face with the Rule Book...I'd have to agree that in fantasy worlds with dragons, sylphs, elves, dwarves, fairies, and giant cubes of gelatin...there should be some way to distill raw cosmic power into an arrow...and then hope that the Black Arrow will pierce Smaug in just the right place.

:smalltongue:

Spell storing can work because it would be fun, not because the Table Lawyer appealed to the Dungeon Judge.

...no offense meant, of course...

Good job, Wookiee-Ranger.

Worira
2012-01-05, 06:04 PM
There is: Be an Arcane Archer. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/arcaneArcher.htm) Arrow of Death may as well be called Black Arrow. Now, the class is woefully underpowered, but that's a separate issue entirely.

Story Time
2012-01-05, 06:33 PM
...what an interesting prestige class. Thanks for the reference. Maybe I'll get a chance to give it a detailed perusal later. :smallsmile:

panaikhan
2012-01-09, 08:29 AM
No, it doesn't say that anywhere. That's why every single enhancement which does transfer the magic from projectile weapon to ammunition needs to say so explicitly. Spell Storing doesn't have such a declaration of magic transfer from weapon to ammunition.

So magical bows fire non-magical arrows?

Gullintanni
2012-01-09, 09:24 AM
So magical bows fire non-magical arrows?

Only in instances when a given ability does not explicitly state that its attributes carry over from weapon to ammunition. A Ghost Touch Longbow, for example, would not confer the Ghost Touch properties on arrows fired from it.

In the case of enhancement bonus:

SRD:

"Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat. All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonus on attack rolls does not stack with their enhancement bonus on attack rolls.

Weapons come in two basic categories: melee and ranged. Some of the weapons listed as melee weapons can also be used as ranged weapons. In this case, their enhancement bonus applies to either type of attack."

Bolded for emphasis. Enhancement bonus applies to all attacks with a weapon. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that firing an arrow from a bow does not constitute using the bow in combat, so the enhancement bonus should carry over to the arrow.

The special properties carry no such description and again, as Curmudgeon point out, each property must thus state explicitly that the bow passes the given property on to ammunition.

charcoalninja
2012-01-09, 12:54 PM
Considering clerics can already do this with Glyph of Warding anyway, at a fraction of the cost... I don't see a problem at all with spell storing arrows.

Let the fun continue.

Also, the only way to wield ammunition is to shoot it. Wielding means using the weapon in combat, and the standard means of doing so is firing ammunition. When you shoot a bow, you are wielding it and the arrows. You don't have to hold something to wield it. You throw a javelin you are wielding it as a thrown weapon. Once it finishes its attack you're no longer wielding it. Ruling otherwise causes a hell of a lot of stupid silliness to occur that the game doesn't need.

Curmudgeon
2012-01-09, 04:05 PM
Also, the only way to wield ammunition is to shoot it.
The rules say otherwise.
Arrows

An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (-4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier 2). You wield the bow. Unless you use it as an improvised melee weapon, you do not wield the arrow.

Wookie-ranger
2012-01-09, 04:21 PM
you wield the bow. Unless you use it as an improvised melee weapon, you do not wield the arrow.

If that is true then i don't need a crossbow to shoot a screaming bolt. would i just need to point screaming bolt in the direction of my enemies and it flies off? or would it be considered a thrown weapon since it never mentions a crossbow? :smallamused:


Screaming Bolt: One of these +2 bolts screams when fired, forcing all enemies of the wielder within 20 feet of the path of the bolt to succeed on a DC 14 Will save or become shaken. This is a mind-affecting fear effect.

Curmudgeon
2012-01-09, 05:34 PM
Screaming Bolt

One of these +2 bolts screams when fired, forcing all enemies of the wielder within 20 feet of the path of the bolt to succeed on a DC 14 Will save or become shaken. This is a mind-affecting fear effect. If you've got some means of firing the Screaming Bolt without a crossbow, you're fine. (The Launch Bolt spell in Spell Compendium on page 130 would work, for instance.) Otherwise you need an appropriate implement for firing a bolt: a crossbow.

Wookie-ranger
2012-01-09, 08:57 PM
If you've got some means of firing the Screaming Bolt without a crossbow, you're fine. (The Launch Bolt spell in Spell Compendium on page 130 would work, for instance.) Otherwise you need an appropriate implement for firing a bolt: a crossbow.

My argument is exactly that. You fire the crossbow bolt and therefore you are considered to wield both the crossbow and the bolt. if i can use launch bolt with it then there is no crossbow, and i am wielding the bolt. if we follow the description to the letter this would be the only way to use the bolt. because otherwise you would not be wielding the bolt but the crossbow, which is nowhere mentioned in the description, therefore we must assume that the he player is considered the "wielder" of the bolt which is the magic item.
If the player would be considered the wielder of the crossbow, but not of the bolt, then the bolt would not function, since it did not say that 'the magical property of the ammunition is bestowed upon the weapon firing it'. therefore we would not have a wielder and the bolt would not know who the enemies of the wielder are.

warning, silly argument:
where does it say that it is a crossbow bolt? it only says that it is a bolt. so someone could argue that it is a steampunk inspired magic item and it is indeed a bolt (as in 'nut and bolt'). and that you would need a slingshot to fire it.
or i could say that it is an item form the far removed plane of 'warhammer 40k' and you need a bolter to fire it.
end of silly argument.

point being it never actually says that it is a crossbow bolt and neither does it say that you are wielding the crossbow.

olentu
2012-01-09, 09:05 PM
My argument is exactly that. You fire the crossbow bolt and therefore you are considered to wield both the crossbow and the bolt. if i can use launch bolt with it then there is no crossbow, and i am wielding the bolt. if we follow the description to the letter this would be the only way to use the bolt. because otherwise you would not be wielding the bolt but the crossbow, which is nowhere mentioned in the description, therefore we must assume that the he player is considered the "wielder" of the bolt which is the magic item.
If the player would be considered the wielder of the crossbow, but not of the bolt, then the bolt would not function, since it did not say that 'the magical property of the ammunition is bestowed upon the weapon firing it'. therefore we would not have a wielder and the bolt would not know who the enemies of the wielder are.

warning, silly argument:
where does it say that it is a crossbow bolt? it only says that it is a bolt. so someone could argue that it is a steampunk inspired magic item and it is indeed a bolt (as in nut and bolt). and that you would need a slingshot to fire it.
or i could say that it is an item form the far removed plane of 'warhammer 40.00' and you need a bolter to fire it.
end of silly argument.

point being it never actually says that it is a crossbow bolt and neither does it say that you are wielding the crossbow.

It would seem that the bolt activates when it is fired, this is presumably different from after it has already been fired, flown some distance (for those things that do), and struck the target.

Gullintanni
2012-01-10, 09:45 AM
Considering clerics can already do this with Glyph of Warding anyway, at a fraction of the cost... I don't see a problem at all with spell storing arrows.

Let the fun continue.

Fraction of the cost? Isn't Glyph of Warding 200 gp/casting...or 200gp/arrow? 50 Glyphed arrows would be 10,000gp.

charcoalninja
2012-01-10, 10:13 AM
Fraction of the cost? Isn't Glyph of Warding 200 gp/casting...or 200gp/arrow? 50 Glyphed arrows would be 10,000gp.

Yeah I didn't do the math all the way through... my bad. Though a +1 spell storing was what 8300gp for the same ones? So 2000gp more and you don't have to worry about RAW arguements about spell storing arrows.

Especially if you make a wonderous magical item of Glyph of Warding 5/day and use it forever to create 150 arrows a month. At the rate of 24,900gp to make the same amount of spell storing arrows it wouldn't take too long to make up the difference in cost.

My main point is that the game already assumes its possible so getting bent out of shape and make inane arguements that the only way to wield ammunition is as an IMPROVISED weapon is silly. Just let the spell storing fly and enjoy. If a PC really wants it, he's going to find a way, the rules are just that broad.

Wookie-ranger
2012-01-10, 10:54 AM
the glyph of warding on bolts would be even more powerful then the spell storing version because it allows nearly any spell of 3lvl and lower.
the spell storing version only allows target spells.



nice! more RAW and more powerful! i like it! :smallbiggrin:

charcoalninja
2012-01-10, 11:42 AM
There's also Greater Glyph or warding for empowered Enervations as well :P

Gullintanni
2012-01-10, 12:47 PM
Actually, I found a way to make Glyphed arrows cheap again. Technically, a Glyph of Warding specifies a target touched, and therefore has a single target. You could reach+chain the Glyph to affect multiple arrows and probably achieve the discount you have in mind...granted that's 5 levels of metamagic, but it's still a reasonable use of a Zen Cleric's downtime.

I'm not sure how many arrows you could affect with a Chain spell, but assuming 5:1 returns you'd have your spell storing ammunition for 2,000 gold.

panaikhan
2012-01-12, 09:01 AM
It all depends what you want the arrow to do.
I've used 'Fire Trap'ped vials of oil or other alchemical substances as arrowheads before. Much cheaper and less arguments.

sreservoir
2012-01-12, 03:15 PM
Actually, I found a way to make Glyphed arrows cheap again. Technically, a Glyph of Warding specifies a target touched, and therefore has a single target. You could reach+chain the Glyph to affect multiple arrows and probably achieve the discount you have in mind...granted that's 5 levels of metamagic, but it's still a reasonable use of a Zen Cleric's downtime.

I'm not sure how many arrows you could affect with a Chain spell, but assuming 5:1 returns you'd have your spell storing ammunition for 2,000 gold.

by the time you can cast chain reach glyph without MMM, you have CL 15, so 15 arrows a pop.

even if you mitigate all the metamagic, you'll still probably have at least CL 5.

also note that each CL booster saves you money in the long term -- with diminish returns, but.

ur-priest can do it with a CL as low as 3, but.

katsuts
2012-04-30, 09:58 AM
hey, i dont know how old this post is, i didnt even read all replies but i saw this and had to make a point about ranged weapons and spell storing, it says in the description, that when you strike, not before you get ready to attack, only after striking you may expend the spell, so if you have an arrow being fired from a bow, how are you going to command it to release the spell, you cannot tell it to release before you let it loose and your not holding it to command it to release, also you cant put it in the bow either because the object holding the spell must be used to strike unless you strike them with the bow itself, it wouldnt transfer from the bow to the ammo, also it isnt on the raged list of modifiers, the closest u can get to rolling one up is a dagger of spell storing, sure u can throw it but ur not holding it when it strikes and you cannot command objects your not holding, cant throw a wand of fireballs and tell it to shoot in mid air b4 u throw it.
come to think of it cant you enchant an entire bundle of ammo at once, if thats the case why stop at bows, u could do make caltrops with fireballs or improved shocking grasp that blow peoples feet off, see how this can be a bit unbalanced and it just doesnt make sense if u read it carefully and arent trying to totaly stretch the hell out of the rules, ppl know this would be op and doesnt make sense

Andorax
2012-04-30, 12:31 PM
Spell Storing:
Permit for the launcher (bow/crossbow), not for the ammunition (arrows/bolts), then allow the ammunition fired to convey the spell effect, just as is done with conveying the flaming benefit of a +1 Flaming bow.

This solves the cost problem (disposable items, constant cost) and the action economy problem (bow only holds one spell...once used, it needs recast, so no full round fireballing). By far and away, this seems the simplest solution.

Jeraa
2012-04-30, 12:51 PM
All of the special abilities that a magic bow can bestow on its ammunition specifically say that happens.

Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the chaotic power upon their ammunition.

Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the lawful power upon their ammunition.

Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the bane quality upon their ammunition.

And so on. Spell Storing does not contain that language, so even if you could put Spell Storing into a bow, it will not bestow that power on ammunition fired from it.

Roninn
2017-02-08, 03:46 PM
As a DM, I always figured that spellstoring arrows/bolts would work like this.

A wizard buys the masterwork arrows for 355 gp. Now, he adds the spellstoring enchant (+1) for 2000gp (1000 if he does it himself). With the knowledge of potential power, and profit, he jacks up the price, and only sells them in small bundles, say 5.

If we break down the actual price, and I base this on him doing his own enchanting, the cost comes out to 27 gold an arrow. He sells the bundles of 5 arrows at 500 gp. this nets him a 3645 gp profit. At least this is how I do it in my campaign. Or, hell, maybe you can only MAKE 5 arrows with the spellstoring enchant 5 at a time. Up to you.

But lets look at the potential drawbacks.

1. You still have to hit your target. Actually hit it. You don't pass the the enemies AC, the arrow wont release the spell.

2. regardless if you hit or miss, the arrow is NOT recoverable. Either the magic burns itself out or the arrow breaks on impact, missing still means the arrow is gone forever.

3. It can still only hold a spell of up to 3rd level.

With all that, I don't see any problem with allowing these in the game. But that's just me.